Sorry for the late reply but I had hoped that someone with more knowledge than myself would offer you some advice but as no one has come forward I will add my little bit. 
I also watched Click and thought the GF2 looked great but then it wasn't really doing anything that my camera couldn't - just in a easier way IYSWIM.
The trick about putting the background out of focus can be achieved by changing the aperture so you may be able to do that already.
This simply isn't true unfortunately, depth of field isn't just a function of the aperture it's a combination of focal length, aperture and the distance to the subject. The problem is on compact cameras is that due to their tiny sensors, the focal lengths are very short which in turn means the depth of field is very deep even at the widest apertures which means there's simply no way to get the shallow depth of field you can on a camera with a larger sensor (such as a DSLR or micro 4/3 camera and others of those type).
The larger sensor in the GF2 also means far better high iso capability which means less noise or grain in pictures taken at the higher isos which is useful in low light. The settings may look similar for both aperture and iso but in practice they're far different, base isos on compact cameras these days have a bit of noise and you can barely go above that before the picture becomes unusable. On the GF2 you can go up to iso 800 with only moderate noise and even iso 1600 is usable. This isn't just useful for low light either, if you're wanting action shots you need very fast shutter speeds to freeze the action although the GF1's shutter has a bit of lag which can make that type of shot a bit more tricky. The GH2 is better in this regard although I'm not sure if the GF2 is.
All this comes at a price though which is mainly the lack of convenience, to keep the GF2's size down you really need to pair it with either the 14mm F2.5 wide angle prime (which they ship with it) or the 20mm F1.7 wide aperture prime. The prime lens means you can't zoom in or out, you can only change lenses and while zoom lenses are available I simply find they're too large for the GF body leaving it unbalanced and not comfortable to use. I prefer the bigger micro 4/3 bodies for the zoom lenses as you get a proper grip and a builtin viewfinder. Also the prime lenses have no stabilisation which means video can be a bit shaky, the Olympus bodies do have inbuilt stabilisation but you can't use it with video.
leisl - It really depends on how you use your current camera as to whether the GF2 (or any of the other similar bodies) would be useful to you. The GF2's large sensor offers capabilities far beyond what a compact can do no matter how good you are with the compact particularly in poor light and for dynamic range but at the same time you have to make a lot of concessions for it, you don't get the all in one convenience package a compact offers. I've lent my GF setup to some people to try out and see what they think, some find it too bulky and inconvenient while others have quite liked it so it's very much a personal preference.
I did go with the Panasonic LX3 for a while as it has a slightly bigger sensor than most compacts and a very bright F2 lens (lets more light in) but since the release of the 14mm micro 4/3 lens my pocket camera is now a GF1 with the 20mm lens and the 14mm slipped in another pocket as it's hard to go back to the LX3's small sensor being used to the larger ones.
John
